Latest news with #NeilBibby
Daily Record
14 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Record
NHS bosses say previous proposals for new Paisley Health Centre under review
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde previously said Paisley was one of three communities which should benefit from a new health and primary care hub. A new Paisley health centre is being considered as part of a wider review of services in Greater Glasgow, NHS chiefs have confirmed. The town centre health hub was first mooted in 2019 when Paisley was identified by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) as one of three communities which should benefit from a new health and primary care hub to house GP surgeries and other specialities. The other two communities – Parkhead in Glasgow's East End and Clydebank, West Dunbartonshire – have had their mulit-million medical centres built. However, in a statement issued to the Paisley Daily Express this week, the health board said the Paisley proposal would now be considered against a host of competing demands. A spokesperson for NHSGGC said: 'A previous proposal for a new Paisley Health Centre, which would bring together a number of primary care services, was affected by the national pause on NHS capital projects, with insufficient funding available for it to be progressed. 'We are currently refreshing our primary care strategy which will revisit the prioritisation of our sites across all six health and social care partnerships. 'This review will inform our priorities going forward should further capital investment become available from the Scottish Government.' The Paisley-based MSP Neil Bibby said there was a strong case for a new health hub in the town centre. The Labour West Scotland MSP said: 'I know countless people struggle to get GP appointments in Paisley when they need them. 'This isn't the fault of doctors and their teams – there simply isn't the capacity locally. That's why a new NHS health centre in Paisley would be a fantastic and much-needed addition to our town. 'There is clear support for extra health and social care provision in Scotland's largest town, which could not only help relieve pressure on local surgeries but the Royal Alexandra Hospital, too, by allowing more local people to access the care they need. 'This proposal must be properly explored without delay, and I will do all I can to encourage NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the Scottish Government to progress this.' The news comes weeks after Beyond Retail reaffirmed its desire to host a medical centre within its transformation of the Paisley Centre. The owners of the shopping mall are progressing plans to transform it into a mixed-use development with housing, retail units, a hotel and health hub. The former Allders Department store has specifically been identified as a possible home for a health centre. Richard Ford, partner at Reith Lambert – which manages the Paisley Centre on behalf of Beyond Retail, said: 'Beyond Retail remains committed to delivering a much-needed, state-of-the-art health and community hub within the former Allders department store. 'This hub is a key element of our transformational development, which will bring millions of pounds of institutional investment into Paisley town centre. 'The project will also include vibrant new residential accommodation, accessible retail space, and a globally recognised hotel partner — all set within a high-quality public realm. 'We will continue to work closely with Renfrewshire Council, the Scottish Government, and other stakeholders to bring this vision to life.' Beyond Retail completed the purchase of the Paisley Centre in November 2020 and later took ownership of the Marks & Spencer High Street unit after M&S confirmed its relocation from the town centre.
The Herald Scotland
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Forget Scotland in Europe. It is the UK which deals with Brussels now
To be clear from the outset, that may not be a consequence of political machination. It may simply be inevitable, a factor of political reality. It may even provide welcome clarity. That has not forestalled SNP protests. In the Holyrood chamber, Angus Robertson noted that the EU deal had been reached 'without the explicit agreement' of the devolved Scottish Government. That was, he said, 'an affront to devolution'. Responding, Labour's Neil Bibby said the External Affairs Minister was 'miserable, opportunistic and inconsistent.' For the Tories, Tim Eagle said the SNP would take Scotland back into the Common Fisheries Policy – an outcome he called a 'horror show'. Read more by Brian Taylor Mr Robertson's objection was that fisheries, as a topic, is devolved to Holyrood. Yet it had featured in the EU deal without any consultation with the Scottish Government. He listed the meetings, cancelled by Whitehall, when the topic could have been raised. UK Government sources say this is limp nonsense. They say the Scottish Government was consulted in generic terms, including at a meeting just prior to the talks, while conceding that there was no specific involvement in the negotiations, not least because the fisheries issue was concluded around midnight on the eve of the London summit. They say the Scottish Government has 'tied itself in knots' over the issue, contriving to end up on the same side as Nigel Farage. To examine this issue, we need to delve back into history – and catch the scent of that devolutionary fudge. As I recall, the aroma first arose in the run-up to the creation of the Scottish Parliament. Importance was attached to a role for the devolved legislature in the European Union. (The UK was, of course, still a member at that point.) The question was how to balance those devolved aspirations with the reality that it was the United Kingdom which was the EU member state. It was the UK which had an audience in Brussels. The result? Fudge. The 1997 White Paper which led to devolution stated that relations with Europe were 'the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government'. There is no real role for the Scottish Government in Westminster's dealings with the EU (Image: free) However it added that 'the Scottish Parliament and Executive will have an important role' in areas where EU business affected devolved areas. There were encouraging words about the involvement of Edinburgh. There was talk of the 'spirit of collaboration'. But there was also emphasis upon the need for a common UK position. Upon ultimate UK sovereignty. In the early years of devolution, there was the Sewel Convention: that the UK would not normally legislate in devolved matters without Edinburgh consent. But that eroded over time – and the UK Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that the Convention was just that. A convention, potentially significant but with no justiciable force. Post Brexit, EU laws were repatriated to the UK. Scottish Ministers complained that this was done without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. Which brings us to today. Fisheries are still devolved. But, arising from the 1998 Scotland Act, relations with the EU are reserved to the UK. (There was no room for fudge in statute.) The 1997 White Paper vaunted UK clout as an EU member state. The UK later left the EU. Politically contentious – but irrelevant to power. It is sovereignty which counts. You may say that EU access to UK (primarily Scottish) fishing waters was sensibly traded for other gains – including speedier market access for salmon and other seafood from our shores. You may say that it was a treacherous sell-out. Either way, it is clear that the lingering Sewel concept is now utterly consigned to history. It is clear that continuing relations with the EU – from outwith the EU – are, in practice, a matter for the UK Government. There will still be talk, as there was in that 1997 White Paper, of consulting and involving Holyrood. But, in the final analysis, little remains of the White Paper concept of collaborative endeavour. Read more Again, to be clear, that applies regardless of the content of the deal. For example, Angus Robertson only launched his attack on the UK Government – after welcoming aspects of the London agreement, other than fisheries. If anything, there is a sharper dilemma for the devolved government in Wales. Led by Labour's Eluned Morgan. Critics there also seized upon the constitutional question, saying that she had allowed the Senedd to be entirely sidelined. Of necessity, Baroness Morgan's response featured caveats. She welcomed the details of the deal, praising the efforts of her party colleague, the Prime Minister. She said it would bring Wales 'more opportunity for jobs and growth'. But she noted, obliquely, that she would have 'liked more discussion' between the Welsh and UK governments over the issue of fishing. Not going to happen, in practice. We are back to statute and sovereignty. Not White Paper fudge. External relations, including with the EU, rest with the UK. Which, to repeat, offers clarity. John Swinney said this week that the only way to protect Scottish fishing now lay with independence. Critics say that rejoining the CFP would involve further concessions. There is, then, a fundamental dispute. Independence versus the Union. Equally, though, there is practical co-operation within the devolved structure. Only this week, the Scottish Secretary Ian Murray announced increasing borrowing powers for Holyrood. He published a report setting out the efforts of UK Departments, such as HMRC and the DWP, to ease devolved tax and benefits functions. In return, the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations work closely and daily with Whitehall, in the common public interest. A straightforward constitutional choice, then. Ian Murray says 'working collaboratively with the Scottish Government' is a key part of the Starmer plan for change. John Swinney says he will govern sensibly and consensually within devolved powers – but invites us to consider how much more could be achieved under independence. All clear? Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
Daily Record
23-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Record
Plans to axe Paisley police station shelved but future remains 'under review'
The facility on Mill Street will now be subject to the 10-year Estates Masterplan review. Plans to find a new police station for Paisley cops have been kicked into the long grass 18 months after chiefs announced proposals to close Mill Street station. Police Scotland has confirmed it has no active plans to relocate officers from the town-centre building which is deemed no longer 'fit for purpose'. The news comes just days after the force said it will dispose of the town's Ferguslie police station, which officers vacated in September last year. Both Mill Street and Ferguslie Park were listed among 29 police stations across Scotland which management said in October 2023 were no longer fit for purpose and should be closed. It confirmed in January 2024 that it was looking at sharing space with a partner agency such as Renfrewshire Council. But a spokesperson confirmed no such agreement had been made and the Mill Street site is now being reviewed as part of the 10-year Police Scotland Estates Masterplan – which has identified neighbouring Greenock police station as a priority. The Police Scotland spokesperson said: 'The future of Paisley police station is currently under review as part of the estates masterplan. 'We recognise the need for a local policing service for the people of Paisley and its surrounding towns and a police presence in the area will continue. 'We are committed to creating an estate that is best for our officers and staff, meets our operational requirements and supports for the communities we serve. 'Until a replacement solution is identified, Police Scotland will make any necessary repairs to the current station in Paisley to ensure it continues to meet health and safety requirements.' The estates masterplan outlines a complete new model for policing going forward. It would see frontline police officers based in 'deployment hubs' from where they will collect their cars and equipment before starting shifts in the community. Individual communities would then each have a community policing base or touch-down point. This could be anything from a drop-in at a community centre to a retained police station, depending on need. But Neil Bibby MSP said Police Scotland must commit to a dedicated police station in Scotland's biggest town. The Paisley-based MSP for West Scotland said: 'I have been clear from the outset that the closure of the Mill Street Police HQ would be completely unacceptable unless it was replaced on a like-for-like basis, which included 24/7 public counter access, a CID base and a town-centre location. 'Clearly, underinvestment from the Scottish Government has driven the closure of Ferguslie Park station and is preventing a new or revamped police station in Paisley town centre too. 'Meanwhile, the SNP government is spending £1 billion on a new Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow after costs for that project have spiralled out of control. 'The police are doing the best job they can in difficult circumstances but aren't getting the support they need and the people of Paisley are paying the price for the SNP's incompetence and wrong priorities.' The Paisley Daily Express revealed in March 2024 how police chiefs spent more than £350,000 upgrading facilities at Mill Street police station before earmarking it for closure. Thousands had been spent addressing leaks in the 1980s prefmises, with serious leaks reported in the roof, radiators and toilets, while electrical issues were also a major concern, with money spent on lighting, air conditioning and water and fire risk assessments. Outlining the reasons for the disposal of the similarly dilapidated Ferguslie police station, Divisional Commander, chief superintendent Rhona Fraser said: 'Ferguslie Park is two miles from Paisley police station and three miles from Johnstone police station. 'Maintaining three buildings so close together is not necessary for operational requirements or financially sustainable. 'By merging resources, we can ensure our focus remains on delivering frontline policing and enhancing community safety, rather retaining underutilised buildings. 'Disposing of a building does not mean a withdrawal from the community. 'It is a key step in our estate masterplan, modernising and investing in police facilities to better support the needs of modern policing. 'Our commitment remains the same, with officers continuing to provide a visible and high-quality service.'
The Herald Scotland
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Herald Scotland
River City row: Here's one way to save BBC Scotland soap
There was much shock and disappointment when the announcement was made in March. A petition to save the soap was organised, a debate was held in the Scottish Parliament, and that was about it. Oh, and my description of the move as cultural vandalism was called 'somewhat hyberbolic' by a BBC heid yin. Apart from keeping an eye on the petition's progress, my work there was done, or so it seemed. But no. On Tuesday, in a report by The Herald's arts correspondent Brian Ferguson, BBC Scotland accused Equity of punting misleading claims about River City viewing figures. The actors' union said half a million people watched each episode on average, but the figure is in fact 200,000. The corporation was also reported to be upset at suggestions River City's £9 million budget would be 'funnelled into cheap reality or factual TV', and used to make new drama series that would import cast and crew from England. A BBC spokesperson said: 'This is about value for money for the audience. We are not cutting our drama spend in Scotland – in fact, we will increase it to around £95m over the next three years.' Now, at the risk of adding hyperbole to the mix again, may I just sidle into this latest twist to have a look around? Equity did indeed use the 500,000 figure, as did Scottish Labour's culture spokesman Neil Bibby when he led the Holyrood debate on River City. Equity has since corrected – or as it says 'updated' – the figure on its website to 200,000. Read more The mistake was unfortunate, but in a strange way it might have done River City a favour. An audience of 200,000 an episode is still a pretty decent figure. Moreover, one assumes River City is cheaper to make. Here is something else to consider. As a Herald reader pointed out on our letters page, if BBC Scotland had to find money for new programmes it could look instead at its current affairs shows. As he said, does anyone watch News at Seven and Debate Night? So I asked BBC Scotland for the numbers and this was the reply: 'Since launch Reporting Scotland: News at Seven has a weekly reach of 80,000 and over the past 12 months Debate Night's weekly reach has been 121,000. Measuring news consumption by reach is a Barb standard and the definition of reach for news is watching for at least three minutes.' In short, they reach fewer people than River City. Now, you can argue, and the BBC does, that the audiences for news and drama are completely different, and comparing the two is not so much the stuff of apples and oranges as apples and trains. But I still think our reader had a point. If you can choose one drama over another, why not apply the same rule to current affairs? Keep the flagship, question the rest. It happened to The Nine after all. The BBC says Reporting Scotland: News at Seven has a weekly reach of 80,000 (Image: free) The row over River City was never just about numbers, though. Much more is going on here. There is unfairness, for a start. River City was hammered by the decision to show blocks of episodes with long gaps between. Fans of the soap, many of them elderly, could not keep up. One week Bob and Angus were there, doing their odd couple thing, the next they had slipped into some Bermuda triangle near Shieldinch. Can you imagine if that happened with Coronation Street or EastEnders? River City is important in other ways. As actor-writer Tom Urie told BBC Scotland's Scotcast: 'It feels like part of Scotland's story.' He's right. Like any long-running drama, River City has had its good weeks and bad, stories that worked and some that didn't. But like the country it came from, River City kept on going. It has tackled difficult subjects, most recently domestic violence, and helped more than a few people along the way. So no, it's not just about gangsters, though I'll admit there has been too much of that. Where River City has been truly invaluable is in bringing working-class voices on to our screens. They've been present in other soaps, but usually the character is there for comedy value, or to play a gangster. It is rare to have so many authentically working-class voices in a drama, far less attach them to ordinary, everyday characters, but River City does that. Read more Working-class voices are not heard nearly enough on television (and radio) and it matters that they are. As the saying has it, if you can see it, you can be it. What goes for actors goes for writers, directors, camera operators, sound technicians, and every other job you can think of on a set. If there's no River City there's no way into these professions for a lot of very bright youngsters from less than privileged backgrounds. With dramas taking years to get from page to screen, commissioning editors need to think ahead, anticipate the next big thing. I get that, and I understand why BBC Scotland is backing the new trio of dramas by Scottish writers. Short series are in demand, particularly after the success of Adolescence, but fashions change. What is never going to be out of favour is authenticity, particularly now AI is knocking on the door, and River City opens the door to more of that. For authenticity, for the training opportunities it offers, for laughs and tears, for just being there and giving enjoyment to so many, River City matters. And as every soap actor knows, once you get in that cab and leave, it is near impossible to come back. Please, BBC Scotland, think again. Alison Rowat is a senior politics and features writer on The Herald. Contact
Scotsman
25-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
Readers' letters: BBC 'not turning its back on Scottish talent by axeing River City'
BBC Scotland defends its decision to decommission River City, saying it is responding to changing viewing habits Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Jackie Baillie MSP raises important points about the role which River City has played in developing screen industry talent in Scotland (Scotsman, 23 April). She is also understandably passionate about the BBC's production having been based in her constituency. At BBC Scotland, we're very mindful of our role in supporting and growing the creative industries, and equally passionate about making content which people in Scotland will love. Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie and culture spokesperson Neil Bibby hosted the cast of River City as they visited Holyrood yesterday to call on MSPs to back the campaign to save the Scottish soap opera (Picture: Lisa Ferguson) The decision to decommission River City is not based on the quality of the writing, the excellent performances of the cast or the high-quality work of the crew. It is a response to what viewers in Scotland are doing, which is moving away – in large numbers – from long-running formats to shorter-run dramas. BBC Scotland needs to make dramas that people want to watch. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad River City now attracts an average audience of 200,000 per episode, while Granite Harbour attracts around double that figure, and Shetland, Vigil and Nightsleeper all average well over 700,000 viewers per episode in Scotland alone. We need to follow our audience's behaviour, and believe that our three new dramas, which will be funded from the current River City budget, will meet these audience expectations. The new BBC Scotland dramas will all be written by Scottish writers, they will employ a wide range of Scotland-based talent, will have training opportunities attached to them and will be made by producers with bases in Scotland – just like River City has been. They will sit alongside a raft of other BBC Scotland productions, in comedy, factual and entertainment, all of which will continue to develop and showcase Scotland's talent, to audiences here at home, and to the world. Luke McCullough. Corporate Affairs Director, BBC Scotland, Edinburgh Running scared Murdo Fraser (Scotsman, 23 April) is right to be concerned about a more fragmented Unionist vote giving the SNP an advantage at the Holyrood election. Where he fails to convince is in his analysis of Reform as bedfellows of the SNP, declaring that the parties are 'in a symbiotic relationship, with a mutual interest in promoting each other'. The opposite is true. John Swinney's summit was in part to 'lock out' far-right Reform from Scottish politics while Reform see their exclusion by him as a denial of democracy. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There are three important facts that all parties need to consider. Firstly, an increasing number of voters like myself are disillusioned with Scottish party politics and feel they can't trust any party to deliver. Secondly, Reform offer false hope to some of change and are taking votes from all parties including the SNP. Finally, the best way to defeat Reform is for parties to get their own houses in order. Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems need to prove they are credible opposition parties to the SNP. Farage says the established parties are right to be worried. That is what he wants most and clearly Mr Swinney and Mr Fraser have fallen into that trap. Scots are concerned about immigration, according to Farage, but provides no evidence of this, nor does he adequately explain how he would restore farming and fishing, so badly affected by Brexit. Farage offers style but little substance. The only change he helped deliver was the disastrous Brexit with the help of the English establishment. The traditional parties are running scared of Reform rather than working harder together for the Scottish people while Farage peddles his politics of fear to the disaffected. Holyrood needs to waken up and deliver for Scotland's people as Reform certainly won't. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Unionist mindset Murdo Fraser's article in response to the summit on far-right extremism was enlightening. By stating that the rise of Reform in Scotland would benefit the SNP, he confirms that it is the Unionist/British elements in Scotland who will be attracted to Reform policies and that it is independence supporters who will resist their sinister attitudes. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Any article by Fraser would not be complete without his often used argument that supporters of the SNP sow division in Scottish society by their continuing campaign for independence. Given that support for and against independence sits at around 50 per cent each, it could be argued that the Unionist campaign to keep us under the control of the British state equally sows divisions in Scottish society. Brian Kelly, Edinburgh Swinney's crusade There should be little doubt, after the long and detailed discussion led by First Minister Swinney (Scotsman, 24 April), that the far right will not be welcome in Scotland. Indeed, the far and central left led by the SNP, along with other members of the great and the good, intend to boot Reform back to whence they came. I'm intrigued how the likes of Reform stack up in their position of almost to the right of Ghengis Khan and surely a perusal of their objectives will guide us in that matter. Obviously one can never judge a party by their promises, as we well know from recent events. However, we have to start somewhere so a quick look through Reform's promises suggests an extreme right bias. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Examples run thick and fast, as the following snapshot examples demonstrate: 1. Restore law and order; 2. Repair public services; 3. Cut taxes; 4. Slash energy bills; 5. Control borders. These few examples demonstrate why the SNP and Greens worry for the direction of travel of our country. No mention of protecting the environment or net zero, no mention of protecting people fleeing persecution from their home countries using fragile small boats. No mention of using debt to build more homes using greenfield land. No mention of protecting the rights of those convicted of crimes. The list of areas of concern to counter the rising tide of the far right are almost endless. Therefore we have to hope and pray that the SNP and Greens gather sufficient support for their opposition to the far right to save us from purgatory. A Lewis, Coylton, South Ayrshire Left v right I read in The Scotsman that in the meeting arranged by John Swinney, STUC general secretary Roz Foyer claimed we are seeing 'a rising amount of dialogue and extreme right-wing ideology that is affecting our communities'. I would like to know which communities and what exactly she considers to be extreme right wing, as she says this with absolutely no examples offered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If this is indeed the case, maybe they should have done more to prevent extreme left-wing views from infecting just about every aspect of our lives. They seem to assume everyone is in favour of these left-wing views and policies just because they are. I would suggest a starting point for them is to get the tax bands changed back in line with the rest of the UK, I don't think anyone should be paying 41 per cent of their wages on £43,000, which is not a great wage given the high cost of everythint today. A Thorpe, Dunfermline, Fife Democracy denied Once again, I am left totally perplexed by a John Swinney statement. He said he was convening a meeting to gather together all opposed to the far right and Reform UK party. Try as I might, I simply cannot see how excluding one party from a multi-view meeting 'strengthens' – to use Mr Swinney's own words – democracy. I would venture very much the opposite is the case. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh Shared values Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad When John Swinney announced at the end of February that he would hold a 'summit' to tackle the rise of the 'far right' that would 'provide leadership and stress the importance of our shared values', he added that it would also 'draw a line in the sand, to set out who we are and what we believe in'. At the 'summit', Mr Swinney warned about 'serious threats to our democratic system and our values in Scotland'. How exactly is our democratic system threatened? Could it be by a regime lasting 18 years whose Auditor General and others have accused of lacking transparency? That redacts huge and embarrassing areas of official documents? That insults MSPs instead of answering their questions? That tries to conceal its monumental incompetence? That is fundamentally unaccountable? Did anyone discover at this 'summit' what 'our shared values' are? Where can we view the mythical line in the sand that it was supposed to draw? This surely is self-righteous nationalist piffle at its most grandiose. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh Court in the act Your editorial (23 April) is right to question Maggie Chapman's claim that her comment that 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred coming from the Supreme Court' did not refer to its judges. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It is reasonable to assume that what she means is that anyone disagreeing with her views on trans is automatically a transphobic bigot, even if they believe in sex chromosomes, which cannot be changed by a certificate, wearing a wig, or even by surgery. I hope that I am right, and that her views were not an attack on the independence of judges, a principle which is a bedrock of our constitution. I declare an interest in that in 2023 the Supreme Court dissected in detail my work as an expert witness in a food poisoning case. Lord Hodge's judgement agreed with my findings in its 34-page report, which quoted many legal precedents going back to the 1820 trial of Queen Caroline for adultery. Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen Write to The Scotsman
